Ask Frank DaignaultFrank Daignault is recognized as an authority on surf fishing for striped bass. He is the author of six books and hundreds of magazine articles. Frank is a member of the Outdoor Writers of America and lectures throughout the Northeast.

As you all should know, but seem to forget, is that I come from a pro gun culture. We have a safe full of sporting arms that were acquired to shoot targets and hunt. Liberals want to take our life style away from us in violation of the Second Amendment. I grew up hunting with my father and older brother. Do you think I am going to give that up? Liberals want to take that away from us so I end up a Republican to protect my gun rights. That, by the way, is not easy for a lifetime union member. And I can tell you that the union saved my butt many years ago. Surely, there have to be members here who have faced the same enigmatic conflicts.

The latest example of a runaway media failing the society it is sworn to serve is a law suit being brought by a mid-west packing house against ABC for its use of the term "pink slime" to describe legally packaged ground meat. The packing house, claiming they have been closed down by use of the term "pink slime" is in court looking for $1.2 billion. For details goggle pink slime

As you all should know, but seem to forget, is that I come from a pro gun culture. We have a safe full of sporting arms that were acquired to shoot targets and hunt. Liberals want to take our life style away from us in violation of the Second Amendment. I grew up hunting with my father and older brother. Do you think I am going to give that up? Liberals want to take that away from us so I end up a Republican to protect my gun rights. That, by the way, is not easy for a lifetime union member. And I can tell you that the union saved my butt many years ago. Surely, there have to be members here who have faced the same enigmatic conflicts.

I could, of course, bring up the argument that the assertion that Liberals are coming for your guns is an idea that has been ingrained in many people's minds in an effort to divide this country and get more "R" votes. In the same way that you assert that "the press" is an institution hell bent on discrediting the president, etc.

A controversy erupted late Tuesday night after CNN published an article announcing that it had uncovered the identity of the anonymous Reddit user who created the video of President Donald Trump punching a CNN logo. CNN and other outlets had previously reported that this user, who uses a pseudonym, had also posted anti-Semitic and racist content on Reddit, including an image identifying all of the Jewish employees of CNN, designated with a Jewish star next to their photos.
Though CNN decided — for now — not to reveal his name, the network made clear that this discretion was predicated on the user’s lengthy public apology, his promise not to repeat the behavior, and his status as a private citizen. But in its article, the network explicitly threatened that it could change its mind about withholding the user’s real name if his behavior changes in the future:

CNN is not publishing “HanA**holeSolo’s” name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.
CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

Several of the objections made to CNN’s conduct here appear to be false. That includes the claim by the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. that the user threatened by CNN is 15 years old (the CNN reporter, Andrew Kaczynski, said the Reddit user is an adult). The claim that CNN “blackmailed” the user into apologizing — expressed by a Twitter hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that still sits at the top of trending topics on the site — seems dubious at best, since there is no evidence the user spoke to CNN before posting his apology (though CNN itself says it contacted the user the day before he posted his apology, which presumably means he knew CNN had found out his name when he posted it).
But the invalidity of those particular accusations does not exonerate CNN. There is something self-evidently creepy, bullying, and heavy-handed about a large news organization publicly announcing that it will expose someone’s identity if he ever again publishes content on the internet that the network deems inappropriate or objectionable. Whether it was CNN’s intent or not, the article makes it appear as if CNN will be monitoring this citizen’s online writing, and will punish him with exposure if he writes something the network dislikes.
There is also something untoward about the fact that CNN — the subject of the original video — was the news outlet that uncovered his identity. That fact creates the appearance of vengeance: If you, even as a random and anonymous internet user, post content critical of CNN, then it will use its vast corporate resources to investigate you, uncover your identity, and threaten to expose you if you ever do so again.
The reality here is likely more complicated. The most offensive passage here — “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change” — sounds like classic lawyer language that executives or corporate lawyers would demand be included. It does not sound like something a typical journalist would write on their own. (CNN did not respond to The Intercept’s inquiries about who inserted this language or what future behavior on the part of the user might trigger CNN’s threat to expose him; we will update this article if any response is received.)
And CNN’s role in discovering this user’s identity is likely more a byproduct of Kaczynski’s well-established internet-sleuthing skills than a corporate decision to target a critic. Indeed, the decision to withhold the person’s name — had it been made without the threat to expose it in the future — could arguably be heralded as a commendable case of journalistic restraint.
In response to the controversy last night, Kaczynski argued that “this line is being misinterpreted. It was intended only to mean we made no agreement [with] the man about his identity.” That may have been CNN’s intent, but that is not what the sentence says.
Whatever the intent, this is a case where one of the nation’s most powerful media corporations is explicitly threatening a critic with exposure should he publish material that the network deems — based on its own secret standards — to be worthy of punishment. And the threat comes in the wake of his groveling public apology, posted less than a day after he learned CNN had discovered his identity.
There is also a real question about whether a news organization — when deciding what information is newsworthy — should take into account factors such as whether someone is remorseful for what they said and whether they promise not to express similar views in the future. Those considerations seem to be the province of those vested with the power to punish bad behavior — a parent, a police officer, or a judge — rather than a news outlet. All of this has a strong whiff of CNN deciding who is a good boy and who is a bad boy based on the content of their views, and doling out journalistic punishments and rewards accordingly.
Moreover, if this person’s name is newsworthy — on the ground that racists or others who post inflammatory content should be publicly exposed and vilified — does it matter if he expressed what CNN executives regard as sufficient remorse? And if his name is not newsworthy, then why should CNN be threatening to reveal it in the event that he makes future utterances that the network dislikes?
If you’re someone who believes that media corporations should expose the identity even of random, anonymous internet users who express anti-Semitic or racist views, then you should be prepared to identify the full list of views that merit similar treatment. Should anyone who supports Trump have their identity exposed? Those who oppose marriage equality? Those with views deemed sexist? Those who advocate communism? Are you comfortable with having corporate media executives decide which views merit public exposure?
Whatever else is true, CNN is a massive media corporation that is owned by an even larger corporation. It has virtually unlimited resources. We should cheer when those resources are brought to bear to investigate those who exercise great political and economic power. But when they are used to threaten and punish a random, obscure citizen who has criticized the network — no matter how objectionable his views might be — it resembles corporate bullying and creepy censorship more than actual journalism.UPDATE: CNN just issued a statement in response to the controversy its article provoked:
All of these claims are already included in this article, but note two key points: 1) While the Reddit user’s apology was posted before he spoke to any CNN reporter, he posted it after he was contacted by CNN, which means he knew when he publicly apologized that the network had unearthed his identity; and, more importantly, 2) CNN’s claim that it merely meant to convey “that there was no deal” is squarely at odds with what its article actually warned: “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.”
That sentence — which can only be read as a threat to reveal his name should he post more offending material in the future — is what has triggered the anger at CNN, and the network’s statement does not address that at all. Finally, CNN apparently refuses to say whether this threatening language was included by its reporter (who has borne the brunt of the public anger) or by its lawyers and executives demanding that it be included.

The "Fake News" flap started by Trump is catching on in more places. Maine Governor LePage just said he has been making stuff up for the press because its easy. "they are stupid anyway".

The president of Poland, who the press reported would not shake hands with Malania Trump, or she with him, I forget, says that it was not true, that it was "fake news."

Remember, buoys and curls, I did not put this up because of today's poor press policies. My contempt for the press dates back 16 years ago when I shot a dog in self defense when media report of it was hostile, innacurate and caused my loss of a very important local Massachusetts writing gig and annual events with Mass Bass. The "Pink slime" thing is also an example of media abuse and ABC network is paying big bucks to settle that one out of court. We just don't know how much they are paying. You are not reading about the pink slime settlement because media all cover for each other. Someone tell me: is failure to report something qualify as "fake news"?

Its kind of enjoyable to watch Trump and the press rip each other apart. Both are providing the public with a sort of self-degradation. I think the press is going to take Trump down. But in so doing millions of readers will suffer from a heightened contempt for the press. Its all lose/lose. People have lost confidence in what they read. Where I live nobody gets a paper any more.

The press is winning. They are going to eventually take down Trump. The power the press has to ruin someone is indisputable. Scary. Maybe I should back off of the press or they will come after me ......AGAIN!

Funny, lately, in the last 10 days since the above post, I am seeing evidence that the press has backed off of Trump somewhat. Now, instead of endless opinion pieces attacking Trump, they have gone to news reporting. Not saying the "Fake news war" is over. Just saying the press might be seeing that their preoccupation with getting Trump is interfering with what they are expected to do.

As long as I live I will never forget what was done to me in 2001 over the dog thing.

Trump is succeeding in his war against the press. More and more people have developed disdain for media. The latest is all this sexual abuse --Hollywood stars fondling little boys or women bitching about having been hit upon in sexual abuse. "Extra, extra, read all about it." Now that is fake news.

Trump is succeeding in his war against the press. More and more people have developed disdain for media. The latest is all this sexual abuse --Hollywood stars fondling little boys or women bitching about having been hit upon in sexual abuse. "Extra, extra, read all about it." Now that is fake news.

so you think the bitches coming out about these allegations is something that might be fake news ?

No, not at all. But I am unhappy that sexual misconduct comes in in Me-too form. Look at Bill Cosby. Why do some of these women wait years to complain? Why not complain when it happens. I have no idea what really happened in these sexual misconducts.

It is Fake news in the extent that it is not worthy of trust. Listen, pay a attention because I should not have to repeat this, there is a gender war, there is a gun war, there is a political party war, there is a racial tension war. My wife and I don't read the papers because we don't trust them. I like to read when having a dump so I read fishing and hunting mags. I read Readers Digest in the woods because deer stand can be boring but I read it to laugh at its triviality and because it fits in my back pocket. Sometimes crap reading can be entertaining for a genuine author -- me.

The only viable newspaper in my region is the Boston Globe. But since the election the publication has gotten so out of balance that I have lost confidence in what were once my favorite columnists. "He is not my president" keeps ringing in my ears. Sure, I know Trump is controversial and I voted for him because I did not want Hillary in office. When Secretary of State she was shopping while our Marines were dieing in Bengazzi. I still believe that the press is getting itself deeper in trouble with the people it is supposed to serve. FUBAR!